Stem cells for enhancing recovery after stroke: a review

The potential application for stem cell therapy is vast, and development for use in ischaemic stroke is still in its infancy. Access to stem cells for research is contentious; however, stem cells are obtainable from both animal and human. Despite a limited understanding of their mechanisms of action, clinical trials assessing stem cells in human stroke have been performed. Trials are also underway evaluating haematopoietic precursors mobilised with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, an approach offering an autologous means of administrating stem cells for therapeutic purposes. This review summarises current knowledge in regard to stem cells and their potential for helping improve recovery after stroke.

Amphetamine increases blood pressure and heart rate but has no effect on motor recovery or cerebral haemodynamics in ischaemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 36285333)

Amphetamine enhances recovery after experimental ischaemia and has shown promise in small clinical trials when combined with motor or sensory stimulation. Amphetamine, a sympathomimetic, might have haemodynamic effects in stroke patients, although limited data have been published. Subjects were recruited 3-30 days post ischaemic stroke into a phase II randomised (1:1), double blind, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects received dexamphetamine (5mg initially, then 10mg for 10 subsequent doses with 3 or 4 day separations) or placebo in addition to inpatient physiotherapy. Recovery was assessed by motor scales (Fugl-Meyer, FM), and functional scales (Barthel index, BI and modified Rankin score, mRS). Peripheral blood pressure (BP), central haemodynamics and middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity were assessed before, and 90 minutes after, the first 2 doses. 33 subjects were recruited, age 33-88 (mean 71) years, males 52%, 4-30 (median 15) days post stroke to inclusion. 16 patients were randomised to placebo and 17 amphetamine. Amphetamine did not improve motor function at 90 days; mean (standard deviation) FM 37.6 (27.6) vs. control 35.2 (27.8) (p=0.81). Functional outcome (BI, mRS) did not differ between treatment groups. Peripheral and central systolic BP, and heart rate, were 11.2 mmHg (p=0.03), 9.5 mmHg (p=0.04) and 7 beats/minute (p=0.02) higher respectively with amphetamine, compared with control. A non-significant reduction in myocardial perfusion (Buckberg Index) was seen with amphetamine. Other cardiac and cerebral haemodynamics were unaffected. Amphetamine did not improve motor impairment or function after ischaemic stroke but did significantly increase BP and heart rate without altering cerebral haemodynamics.

Predicting long-term outcome after acute ischemic stroke: a simple index works in patients from controlled clinical trials

Background and Purpose—An early and reliable prognosis for recovery in stroke patients is important for initiation of individual treatment and for informing patients and relatives. We recently developed and validated models for predicting survival and functional independence within 3 months after acute stroke, based on age and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score assessed within 6 hours after stroke. Herein we demonstrate the applicability of our models in an independent sample of patients from controlled clinical trials. Methods—The prognostic models were used to predict survival and functional recovery in 5419 patients from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA). Furthermore, we tried to improve the accuracy by adapting intercepts and estimating new model parameters. Results—The original models were able to correctly classify 70.4% (survival) and 72.9% (functional recovery) of patients. Because the prediction was slightly pessimistic for patients in the controlled trials, adapting the intercept improved the accuracy to 74.8% (survival) and 74.0% (functional recovery). Novel estimation of parameters, however, yielded no relevant further improvement. Conclusions—For acute ischemic stroke patients included in controlled trials, our easy-to-apply prognostic models based on age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score correctly predicted survival and functional recovery after 3 months. Furthermore, a simple adaptation helps to adjust for a different prognosis and is recommended if a large data set is available. (Stroke. 2008;39:000-000.)

Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor mobilizes bone marrow stem cells in patients with subacute ischemic stroke: the Stem Cell Trial of Recovery EnhanceMent After Stroke (STEMS) Pilot Randomized, Controlled Trial (ISRCTN 16784092)

Background and Purpose - Loss of motor function is common after stroke and leads to significant chronic disability. Stem cells are capable of self-renewal and of differentiating into multiple cell types, including neurones, glia, and vascular cells. We assessed the safety of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) after stroke and its effect on circulating CD34 stem cells. Methods - We performed a 2-center, dose-escalation, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial (ISRCTN 16784092) of G-CSF (6 blocks of 1 to 10 g/kg SC, 1 or 5 daily doses) in 36 patients with recent ischemic stroke. Circulating CD34 stem cells were measured by flow cytometry; blood counts and measures of safety and functional outcome were also monitored. All measures were made blinded to treatment. Results - Thirty-six patients, whose mean SD age was 768 years and of whom 50% were male, were recruited. G-CSF (5 days of 10 g/kg) increased CD34 count in a dose-dependent manner, from 2.5 to 37.7 at day 5 (area under curve, P0.005). A dose-dependent rise in white cell count (P0.001) was also seen. There was no difference between treatment groups in the number of patients with serious adverse events: G-CSF, 7/24 (29%) versus placebo 3/12 (25%), or in their dependence (modified Rankin Scale, median 4, interquartile range, 3 to 5) at 90 days. Conclusions - ”G-CSF is effective at mobilizing bone marrow CD34 stem cells in patients with recent ischemic stroke. Administration is feasible and appears to be safe and well tolerated. The fate of mobilized cells and their effect on functional outcome remain to be determined. (Stroke. 2006;37:2979-2983.)

Speeding stroke recovery? A systematic review of amphetamine after stroke

Introduction: The use of drugs to enhance recovery (“rehabilitation pharmacology”) has been assessed. Amphetamine can improve outcome in experimental models of stroke, and several small clinical trials have assessed its use in stroke. Methods: Electronic searches were performed to identify randomised controlled trials of amphetamine in stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic). Outcomes included functional outcome (assessed as combined death or disability/dependency), safety (death) and haemodynamic measures. Data were analysed as dichotomous or continuous outcomes, using odds ratios (OR), weighted or standardised mean difference, (WMD or SMD) using random-effects models with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI); statistical heterogeneity was assessed. Results: Eleven completed trials (n=329) were identified. Treatment with amphetamine was associated with non-significant trends to increased death (OR 2.78 (95% CI, 0.75– 10.23), n=329, 11 trials) and improved motor scores (WMD 3.28 (95% CI −0.48–7.04) n=257, 9 trials) but had no effect on the combined outcome of death and dependency (OR 1.15 (95% CI 0.65–2.06, n=206, 5 trials). Amphetamine increased systolic blood pressure (WMD 9.3 mmHg, 95% CI 3.3–15.3, n=106, 3 trials) and heart rate (WMD 7.6 beats per minute (bpm), 95% CI 1.8–13.4, n=106, 3 trials). Despite variations in treatment regimes, outcomes and follow-up duration there was no evidence of significant heterogeneity or publication bias. Conclusion: No evidence exists at present to support the use of amphetamine after stroke. Despite a trend to improved motor function, doubts remain over